Let's take two key issues:
1) Health Care: The fundamental difference between Obama’s plan and Clinton’s plan is that the latter compels all Americans to purchase coverage, while the former does not. In essence, Clinton’s plan--the American Health Choices Plan--seeks to limit adverse selection by forcing young, healthy Americans to purchase insurance in order pay for the older generation. It also bars insurance companies from raising premiums on at-risk buyers, or from denying coverage under any circumstances.
2) Mortgages: Clinton's mortgage plan calls for a 30-day moratorium on foreclosures and a five-year freeze on adjustable rate mortgages, including those that are currently set below prime rates. Obama’s plan, which is not nearly as interventionist, is geared toward preventing and prosecuting “predatory lending” and creating a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and avoid foreclosure.
The bottom line is this: We can’t can bully insurers and mortgage lenders into taking financial losses. It’s absurd to suggest that we can. The cost of forcing insurers to cover millions of Americans will inevitably be born by other Americans--mainly young Americans--whether through higher taxes or higher premiums. Likewise, the cost of forcing Mortgage companies to rewrite the terms of their contracts and forgive billions of dollars in debt will be born by young Americans who are seeking to purchase homes over the next five years.
The math on this is pretty simple. But I don't think that Clinton is very concerned about the blacklash from my generation.
After all, we're not voting for her.